jgibson000

But this "quoted" claim of RC's wasn't an "aside" in its present manifestation.

It was something that was the center of RC's his concern.

It is also, given how apodictically (if not patronizingly), without qualification, and with the exceptional (sneering?) emphasis with which he put it forth, something that was presented as a fact whose truth was as indisputable as it was not to be disputed.

Moreover, his claim is either right or wrong no matter how briefly stated, what venue it appears in, and whether or not it is footnoted.

JG

jgibson000

What I'm really concerned about is your missing a point that others besides myself saw, as well as what appears to be an attitude on your part that stands behind your messages concerning Carrier, namely, that he can do no wrong and that he is not to be held accountable for what he posts here in ways you seem to think that others who post here or should be.

JG

Toto

Dear Dr. Gibson: You have reported a post, please wait for the moderators to reach a consensus. Please avoid discussing personal issues and complaints about the moderation in thread.

Thanks for your attention to this.

Toto

jgibson000

Attention to what?

As you should be aware, what I "reported" had nothing to do with the issue or the claim under discussion (how many versions of the LXX there were by the 1st century AD).

And what I addressed to you was to you as an interlocutor, not as a moderator, and it had nothing to do with how this thread is being moderated.

You asked me on list what I was concerned about. I answered where it seemed, given your choice of venues to speak to me, that it was appropriate to answer you -- on list.

And what I had to say was not meant to be taken as a personal attack. It was an observation about what, in my eyes, and in the eyes of others, you as an interlocutor and not as a moderator seemed to have missed in another's post -- which, I hope, is an observation that is permissible to make, especially since you were making an on list argument to the contrary.

Are list members never allowed to question your judgment when it appears that your are posting as a member and not as a moderator, when you seem to be entering into the debate going on, or to be answering the questions posed, in a thread as a contributer, and when there is no indication in what you post that you are giving moderator's directives?

And please forgive me this question, but I do have to ask: Given that the above is a moderator's address to me alone, and especially if subsequently I am upbraided for publicly responding to it, why did you post this address to the list as a whole and not to me privately?

This is not a complaint about moderation. Just a question about your personal style.

JG

Toto

split from here

jgibson000

What is the criterion by which you are judging posts in this thread to be "off topic"?

And are you making these decisions unilaterally?

Jeffrey Gibson

Toto

To clarify - if I or another moderator posts as a moderator, it is usually in a different color.

You may question any moderator's decision, but not in the thread, since that tends to sidetrack the discussion.

Complaints about other poster's tone, or that you are being treated unfairly, or that you don't like my style, are similar digressions that do not belong in the thread.

Toto

For instance, this comment is off topic. It has nothing to do with the Septuagint or virgin births.

Yes. I wield enormous power. If you have a complaint, there is a separate forum for that.

Please review the Forum Rules at the link at the top of the page.

jgibson000

Got it.

I note then, that the post which was the occasion of my message about my concern was not in colour.

And as you know, my complaint about a poster's tone was addressed to you and the moderators off list.

So I'd be grateful if you don't accuse me on list of doing something that I didn't do on list.

I'd also be grateful if you'd answer why it was that what was essentially a private message to me, not to mention one which was clearly a digression from the thread, was posted to the list.

Jeffrey Gibson

Toto

Which post was that?

The post that heads up this thread has a reference to the "exceptional (sneering?) emphasis" and a few other uncomplimetary references.

We moderators try to do our best in keeping discussions going and avoiding flame wars and unnecessary confusion, which sometimes involves in thread requests. Sometimes things don't work out as planned.